← Back to results
Page 57 · DO #4666 · 231_Rogers_Bx2FF27_r
- Collection
-
David James Rogers (1918–2007) papers
- Item/Folder
-
Taximetrics Course - Student Reports, 1966–1968
- Digital Object
-
DO #4666,
page 57
- Collection-level dates
- 1948–1977
Page transcription
not these precise numbers aid you in the classification or not is a question of
how you use it and how you put it together, you see. (Craig) What are we
aiming at in the end with chemotaxonomy and cytotaxonomy? (Dave) More information about the plant. (Craig) We are always looking for more information, but
why, why are we looking for it? This is my , I'm not getting my point
across to you. To me the end product if we could get it, you can't get it
perfectly, but if we could get it would be an understanding of
how life evolved, plants evolved and the relationships that developed along the
way. (Bob) Don't you want to know something about/anatomy and morphology and
chemical properties of these plants? (Craig) Yes, we do..... (Bob) Their history
their genealogy? (Craig) You do, but that is not necessarily the end product
aim in taxonomy, to learn about the ...............
(Craig) Right. This is people, individual workers that they each have their
own aims and interests, and we may need a classification to fit the special case
like you said. (Henry) In the meantime, we are going to have to know what we
are talking about. That is one way of putting names down. You mentioned before
better if it were phylogenetic.
well nigh impossible to use . But they do teach, or do
indicate some to you about how the evolved they do that.
(Craig) Can't you separate a key used for identification purposes from the
taxonomic . (Henry) two keys are given. One key the
phylogenetic relationships per se.............. (Dave) I would
suggest amongst other things that you actually look at the outputs of people who are phylogenetically inclined. Look at the information given by these people
when they write down their descriptions of the taxa which they have accepted.